Air pollution is really getting to me.

I live in London Ontario Canada. There is a bike path that runs through the entire city that I like to ride my bike on a few times a week. I've been down the path many times over many years but this is the first time I've noticed that the air is cleaner while on the path. It follows a river that runs through the city. Having the path go along the river makes for a lot of trees and vegetation - the reason for the cleaner air.

I have to ride for about ten minutes down city streets and roads before I get to the path and the pollution from cars and such is just gross. I can smell and taste all the exhaust in the air. I pass a small industrial complex too which makes it even worse.

Anyone else notice how bad the air is getting? Is it bad where you live?

Bad air quality concerns me... among other environmental things.

 

I was in Hamilton Ontario a few weeks back and noticed much the same problem. It`s amazing how...in a city setting...the air quality can differ so much in such a relatively short distance. It`s the same with the cities on this side of the border too...though in Buffalo I don`t notice it quite so much.

 

I live right on the Fox River in a far west suburb of Chicago, and even though we do have alot of industrial parks in this area...It's not too bad!! However...sometimes the river get's a little stagnant smelling!!!!

Roger

 

An interesting tidbit that may or may not be true...

A lot of air polltion is in the form of particulates from diesel engines. The thick black smoke you see when that dump truck changes gear. Most of it is too big to do you harm, but the stuff that is less that 2.5 microns in diameter, known as PM2.5, can get deep into the lungs and cause real problems.

So, new diesel engine research in Germany and/or Japan has come up with a different method of combustion that destroys 90% of the particulates. A much cleaner engine. Only they found that it was still creating particulate matter. But so small it was not being detected by the current air monitoring equipment. It's so small it can go deep into the lungs and straight into the bloodstream.

So I was told by a German air pollution scientist. It might not be true.

 

I just found out that a coal powerplant is being shutdown in Ontario. It's been said that getting rid of the plant will be like taking 500, 000 cars off the road. That's a good step in the right direction.

 

I prefer trees with my ocean thanks....

 

Could well be true. The PTBE (I think it's called) that the U.S. EPA mandates be put into gasoline in the highest pollution cities/areas is an extremely strong carcinogen, and it's starting to turn up in lakes and ground water... DRINKING water... in the affected areas, posing a much greater danger than the air polution it's supposed to be helping. And it's still mandated. Enviros can be as stupid and nearsighted as anyone else.

I was not too far from you up until 5 years ago. Prevailing winds there are west-to-east, so you're upwind of most of the 10 million people that make up the Chicago metro area. Visit Gary Indiana on a bad day.

It is, as long as they've got something to replace it with. We still need the power. Unless it's upwind of you, though, it likely won't help London. Your biggest problem is that you're directly downwind from Detroit, which likely produces MOST of the crap that's in your air. I haven't been through your area since the 1970s, and back then the Canadian stretch between you and Detroit wasn't densely populated. It may be lot more congested now, but I imagine Detroit is still your biggest problem.

Personally, I live right near Memphis Tennessee, but I live just south of the city, and the prevailing winds are to the northeast, so I have clean air to breath.

If you're severely affected by air polution, you should look at large cities and try to live upwind of them. Polution isn't a global issue, it's very regional. There's lots of decent air to breathe, but you need to get away (upwind) of any large cities to stay in the good zone.

 

Hm, not too bad here. But I live out in the country, so it's not surprising. It was pretty bad when I went to NY though...

I heard Maryland has terrible pollution. And New Delhi, in India. That the dirty air settles on the furniture...and in your lungs

 

Yep, the exhaust from diesel engine emissions is actually quiet carcinogenic, and is much worse that automobiles on petroleum. Low lead fuel is worse for both health and environment, despite being lower in lead. That is more related to lower production costs and greater profits.


Perth can be pretty bad for man-made and bushfire pollution on some days. So much for getting away from it all.

 

Suoth-eastern BC... good here most of the time. I think it was about ten years ago that the "beehive" waste burners were legislated out of lumber mills. That made a huge difference in our air quality. Now we only have a problem sometimes with woodstoves in the winter, or if forest fires get bad in the summer. Fires hundreds of miles away can affect our air. We're not densely populated here to have a problem with car exhaust, but I do get the occasional customer that wants the catalytic converter removed from there car. Not a chance. I'm a firm believer in auto emission standards.

 

Detroit in America and Windsor in Canada probably contribute the majority of the poor air quality in Southern Ontario. Toronto is pretty bad too. I'm stuck inbetween all those cities. boo-urns for me. I've heard that the poor air quality around here is responsible for a lot of thyroid cancer. I'VE HAD THYROID CANCER TWICE AND I'M ONLY 25!

That's why pollution is bugging and concerning me. I wish I lived somewhere else. You people who live in areas of clean air are lucky and I envy you.

I ride by, past, and behind some diesel engine trucks on my way to the path. I think I'll find another way to get there now.

 

They aren't gone yet. Try the Bulkley Valley sometime. Still a lot of beehive burners in that area. I guess the Cranbrook area doesn't have any left. It'll be good when they are all gone, but there's so much foot dragging on the issue.

 

That depends a lot on what sort of plant they are opening to replace the power that the old one generated.

I live in Ft Worth Texas, our air quality is worse than LA thanks in part to all the grandfathered high polution industries, and the poorly planned mass transit system. It plays heck with my asthma.

 

I think they said they were looking into solar or wind power. Who knows if they will follow up on that. I hope it's something environmentaly friendly.

 

Nuclear is environmentally friendly, but no-one will believe it.

 

I moved to AURORA, Illinois about 5 years ago, from Southern Illinois (Carbondale, SIU) and I can't wait to convince my wife to move back home to the hills!!

My biggest annoyance is the Dial Soap plant about a half mile directly west of my place!!! The smell that place makes...UUUUUGGGHH...sometimes you begin to wonder what the hell are they making over there, and this is what we use to clean our boddies!!!!

Roger

 

http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=65683

 

I guess you didn't see fight club, MrPewty. I didn't know what soap was made out of until I saw that.

 

Word!

Nuclear is TOTALLY clean; no polution whatsoever. And new designs are much safer than the older ones we're currently using. And the waste products can be recycled. The U.S. is the only country I know of that's stupid enough to refuse to recycle it, thanks to the "Greens" that hate nuclear and use the waste issue as part of their scare tactics. Hydroelectric is great where you can tap a river (without the Greens stopping you because it might hurt the fish traffic). Solar is nice, when it's not cloudy. Wind power is nice when the wind's blowing. But nuclear is more efficient and much more dependable than either solar or wind.

 

Yes, I have to say nuclear power is one area where I do stray from the official green path. I believe that environmental ideology clouds a lot of minds to the fact that there is nothing that can produce power at those levels cleaner than a nuclear plant. I'm all in favour of alternative methods, but most are impractical, or haven't reached a technological level where they are feasible.

Some would rather use coal....

 

I'll third that statement. Now, if we can just make more progress on developing a viable nuclear fusion process, the whole waste issue will be all but eliminated. Unless I am mistaken the primary waste products of fusion are water, heat, and helium - with very low levels of radioactive particles. I've read that some experts feel the excess heat generated will be the biggest problem to deal with.